Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

1100 wrote:

SDSU Aztec wrote:

"We believe this President has great approval in this country. His historic Covid response speaks for itself," White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany..."

I checked out her Wikipedia page and she is quite impressive. JD from Harvard and studied at Oxford. How could she possibly want to take a job that requires her to lie to protect a liar?

Took a look at her Wikipedia page as well. Not terribly impressed.

I see nothing in her past that indicates integrity, respect for truth, or any principles beyond self promotion. Why wouldn't she take a job that requires her to lie to protect a liar?

The answer is that integrity is not a function of one's abilities, accomplishments or social and financial standing. Especially at this stage, anyone willing to side with trump has no integrity. Kayleigh is one of many well educated, accomplished, popular and well-off people who decided to get on the trump train because they share similar values and interests.

Armstronglivs wrote:

...

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2020/jul/17/the-guy-stinks-and-hes-a-racist-anthony-scaramucci-on-donald-trump

...

My personal favorite:

”I found that when I was briefing him, I had to put pictures of him in the briefing. When I put the pictures in, it was a good sign, and when I didn’t put the pictures in, you couldn’t get him to focus on it.” – Anthony Scaramucci

Trollminator wrote:

1100 wrote:

Took a look at her Wikipedia page as well. Not terribly impressed.

I see nothing in her past that indicates integrity, respect for truth, or any principles beyond self promotion. Why wouldn't she take a job that requires her to lie to protect a liar?

The answer is that integrity is not a function of one's abilities, accomplishments or social and financial standing. Especially at this stage, anyone willing to side with trump has no integrity. Kayleigh is one of many well educated, accomplished, popular and well-off people who decided to get on the trump train because they share similar values and interests.

Yup

SDSU Aztec wrote:

formerly present wrote:

Among those Trump supporters whom I know personally--admittedly a quite limited sample--actually somewhat *more* than half are motivated by the abortion issue.

Though they are mostly religious, the more biblically literate among them are aware that the Bible does *not* proscribe abortion. But they don't care. They see it as murder regardless of what the Bible (and hence "G-d") says.

Some of them are completely embarrassed by Trump, but they believe absolutely that not voting for him is a vote for abortion. So they'll hold their noses and pull the Trump lever in the voting booth.

The people for whom abortion is a deal-breaker number in the tens of millions.

According to this poll, a large majority does not want Roe vs. Wade overturned. The issue will not affect the election:

https://www.npr.org/2019/06/07/730183531/poll-majority-want-to-keep-abortion-legal-but-they-also-want-restrictions

If I had to guess, I'd say that there are a number of deal-breaker issues spread across these millions of voters that make up the 40%. The common denominator for all of them is fear. We can debate any of the specific issues, but fear is at the root of them all and these millions of voters are inflicted by it and I suspect will always be.

johnny99 wrote:

Thank goodness Mexico is paying for this!

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/border-wall-costs-could-grow-exponentially-due-to-poor-planning-dhs-oig/ar-BB16RGCa?li=BBnb7Kzhttps://www.texastribune.org/2020/07/09/texas-border-wall-private-inspection/

Guess who built that wall.

semsurrrrrrrrrr wrote:

Rigged for Hillary wrote:

RBG has liver cancer. What are her odds of survival now?

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-liver-cancer-returned/story?id=71842504

An 87 year old with reoccurring liver cancer requiring hospitalization during a global pandemic.

Did you really need to ask the question?

No doubt she faces an uphill battle. What’s your point rigged?

His point is he's dying to hear some bad news before election. Whatever owns the libs is justified because the orange deity says so.

L L wrote:

I don't know her odds of survival.

I've seen people last a lot longer than they should have.

But we can't just have a Supreme Court Justice merely survive to stay on the bench.

They have to be healthy enough to do the job.

This lifetime appointment has to be amended.

20 years and then you retire.

And the idea of trying to "survive" certain presidential terms because of political leanings is crazy.

Yes, but these are desperate times my friend

1100 wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

...

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2020/jul/17/the-guy-stinks-and-hes-a-racist-anthony-scaramucci-on-donald-trump

...

My personal favorite:

”I found that when I was briefing him, I had to put pictures of him in the briefing. When I put the pictures in, it was a good sign, and when I didn’t put the pictures in, you couldn’t get him to focus on it.” – Anthony Scaramucci

Anthony picked up that trick from here. Trump hasn't developed the ability to track smoothly yet, but the trick still works.

Trollminator wrote:

semsurrrrrrrrrr wrote:

An 87 year old with reoccurring liver cancer requiring hospitalization during a global pandemic.

Did you really need to ask the question?

No doubt she faces an uphill battle. What’s your point rigged?

His point is he's dying to hear some bad news before election. Whatever owns the libs is justified because the orange deity says so.

Pretty sure that Rigged would consider it good news (though perhaps too cowardly to openly say so).

friendojamin wrote:

I agree on a 20 year Supreme Court term. Definitely sad to see older justices try to "hang on" hoping for a president that will put forward a ideologically similar replacement.

The problem with a term limit is it is easy to get around. Trump pushed Kennedy out and shoved in Kavanuagh. Kennedy served 30 years. Add a 20 year limit for Kavanuagh. That is 50 years. The 20 year limit would have to be worked out somehow to avoid being voided by people like Trump and McConnell.

Maybe something like "retiring" during a term means the 20 year clock does not stop. A replacement justice could only serve the remaining term. A new clock starts only with the natural death of a justice. I added natural death because some idiot with a gun could decide to assassinate a justice they don't like.

1100 wrote:

SDSU Aztec wrote:

"We believe this President has great approval in this country. His historic Covid response speaks for itself," White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany..."

I checked out her Wikipedia page and she is quite impressive. JD from Harvard and studied at Oxford. How could she possibly want to take a job that requires her to lie to protect a liar?

Took a look at her Wikipedia page as well. Not terribly impressed.

I see nothing in her past that indicates integrity, respect for truth, or any principles beyond self promotion. Why wouldn't she take a job that requires her to lie to protect a liar?

I'm not very impressed either.

It does take something on the ball to get into Harvard, but I can't say I've been impressed with Harvard grads that I've worked with.

It doesn't take much to say you "studied at Oxford". Like McEnany, I also studied there as an undergrad but it doesn't mean either of us were properly enrolled in an Oxford college. It just means we attended some classes there for credit back home.

1100 wrote:

Trollminator wrote:

His point is he's dying to hear some bad news before election. Whatever owns the libs is justified because the orange deity says so.

Pretty sure that Rigged would consider it good news (though perhaps too cowardly to openly say so).

of course, and that is what I am suggesting, just forgot to use quotations around "bad news"

20 years on wrote:

friendojamin wrote:

I agree on a 20 year Supreme Court term. Definitely sad to see older justices try to "hang on" hoping for a president that will put forward a ideologically similar replacement.

The problem with a term limit is it is easy to get around. Trump pushed Kennedy out and shoved in Kavanuagh. Kennedy served 30 years. Add a 20 year limit for Kavanuagh. That is 50 years. The 20 year limit would have to be worked out somehow to avoid being voided by people like Trump and McConnell.

Maybe something like "retiring" during a term means the 20 year clock does not stop. A replacement justice could only serve the remaining term. A new clock starts only with the natural death of a justice. I added natural death because some idiot with a gun could decide to assassinate a justice they don't like.

I think a better solution might be to impose some shorter limit (say 10 years) and change the method of appointment, making it more objective somehow. Faster turnover and less political involvement in the process would help prevent administrations from rigging the court and holding the future hostage by keeping an old guard despite the country continuing to change drastically.

Trollminator wrote:

https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1284211267108868097?s=20

It's the audit, man!

Fat hurts wrote:

1100 wrote:

Took a look at her Wikipedia page as well. Not terribly impressed.

I see nothing in her past that indicates integrity, respect for truth, or any principles beyond self promotion. Why wouldn't she take a job that requires her to lie to protect a liar?

I'm not very impressed either.

It does take something on the ball to get into Harvard, but I can't say I've been impressed with Harvard grads that I've worked with.

It doesn't take much to say you "studied at Oxford". Like McEnany, I also studied there as an undergrad but it doesn't mean either of us were properly enrolled in an Oxford college. It just means we attended some classes there for credit back home.

I'm puzzled as to why reporters attend her press conferences. She will never give an honest answer and since its unlikely she ever discusses anything with Trump, she's no more knowledgeable than any of the reporters in attendance.

Maybe it's enjoyable for them to watch her lie like a MoFo

SDSU Aztec wrote:

Fat hurts wrote:

I'm not very impressed either.

It does take something on the ball to get into Harvard, but I can't say I've been impressed with Harvard grads that I've worked with.

It doesn't take much to say you "studied at Oxford". Like McEnany, I also studied there as an undergrad but it doesn't mean either of us were properly enrolled in an Oxford college. It just means we attended some classes there for credit back home.

I'm puzzled as to why reporters attend her press conferences. She will never give an honest answer and since its unlikely she ever discusses anything with Trump, she's no more knowledgeable than any of the reporters in attendance.

Maybe it's enjoyable for them to watch her lie like a MoFo

Unfortunately, whatever information is coming out of the white house is critical for reporters. Also, trump has been a boon for all news outlets... that is undeniable. He grew the political news pie. Every day it's a given he will generate something outrageous or entertaining to report on.

I kind of felt like I was reading my own thoughts, there. Cosmically incomprehensible that SO many of our fellow citizens not only don't see this, but they ACTUALLY support him. God help us.